upvote
Yes. The models are good, the models are fast, and the internal tooling has caught up at this point too. There's a lot of UI/UX/tooling stuff that's still being worked through, integrations with VCS, and solving deeper problems that I probably can't talk about, but I'd say the frustrations of most are about the rate of change much more than the actual abilities.

One thing that's interesting is a bunch of internal thought leaders who swear by the Flash models over the Pro models. Whether this is true or not doesn't really matter, the interesting bit to me is that we are at a point with the models where "better" models are not necessarily more useful, and that faster with more work on the harnesses may be a better trade-off.

reply
> a bunch of internal thought leaders who swear by the Flash models over the Pro models

I'm coming around on this too. deepseek-v4-flash is impressive.

reply
>One thing that's interesting is a bunch of internal thought leaders who swear by the Flash models over the Pro models.

I've seen people outside Google favoring flash Gemini models over the Pro.

There are also some benchmarks where flash models have higher scores, so yes, apparently speed does matter.

reply
You’re absolutely kidding yourself if you genuinely believe that.
reply
Happy to chat internally if you want, feel free to reach out.

I see a lot of people swearing by one model, but without trying others. I see a lot of opinions based on a snapshot of tooling from ~January, when for example Claude Code was exceptional, but that don't appear to have been updated. In blind tests the models appear to be much closer than some folks would have you believe.

reply
If you mean specifically the Gemini VS Code Extension: it's terrible compared to Claude Code or Codex. I don't know how they can get away with it. Just constant timeouts, weird failure modes, have to start a new chat to switch modes... but I don't think any of that is specific to gemini the model- it seems to be the extension.

As for actual solutions to problems ignoring the VS Code extension aspect, I find all three premiere models to be excellent coding agents for my purposes.

reply
The overall quality of LLM coding tools is shockingly bad. I haven't found a single one without major issues, and many have the same problems reappear every few months, sometimes bad enough to almost break the entire thing (e.g. 100% failure rate in editing files, broken for weeks, with the same cause each time, multiple times in a year).

I'd say I'm surprised by it, but uh

reply
>The overall quality of LLM coding tools is shockingly bad

Most of them were vibecoded in days, so what do you expect? And new versions just add features, they never fix the old cruft.

Probably there would be some money to be made if someone actually takes the time to write a good agent harness.

reply
Note that coding is not the only use of Gemini or any of these models. It's also not what this article is talking about. Gemini can be not the best coding agent, but very good at other things.
reply
The point of dogfooding is exactly that: if we're unhappy, we're the ones to improve.
reply
the engineers using gemini have no control over deepmind
reply
Are you in the Gemini team?
reply
Last month, Steve Yegge suggested that they are not: https://xcancel.com/Steve_Yegge/status/2043747998740689171
reply
> He says the problem is that they can't use Claude Code because it's the enemy, and Gemini has never been good enough to capture people's workflows like Claude has, so basically agentic coding just never really took off inside Google. They're all just plodding along, completely oblivious to what's happening out there right now.

This is a bunch of gabagoo. Wrong on so many layers, it's not even worth reading further.

a) goog has agentic coding in both antigravity & cli forms. While it is not at the level of cc + opus, it's still decent.

b) goog has their own versions of models trained on internal code

c) goog has claude in vertex, and most definitely can set it up in secure zones (like they can for their clients) so they'd be able to use claude (at cost) within their own projects.

reply
Agreed, however imo there is def some problems unique to Google which is making the internal experience less than ideal.

Hoping they can figure it out sooner rather than later.

reply
Demis Hassabis chimed in on that thread and called it what it is: clickbait.
reply
I’m not so sure. From talking to some of my own friends at google they feel that antigravity/gemini models are handicapping them and would much rather be using claude code (which only deepmind gets to use)
reply
Sure, but there's cavernous distance between "google = john deere" and "darn I have to use Gemini"
reply
He was entirely correct.

He made a follow up after the pushback by GDM.

Google’s businesses are very broad and durable. But Google being the only company in the world without access (except for GDM+labs) to a competent coding agent will take a toll.

We’ll see how long Google can hold out hoping for GDM to create something that is competitive.

I’m guess that within 6 months Google will give up on coding and finally let their devs use Claude/Codex.

This isn’t a security problem, this is a GDM issue with GDM’s promises being far beyond their ability.

reply
There is value in the "eating your own dog food".

If internal staff aren't happy with the tools they build, typically that should drive improvements to their own tools

reply
This couldn't be further from the truth
reply
I for one can't tell the difference between Claude and Gemini for coding. And the internal agent tooling is many times faster than Claude Code in my experience.
reply
they use a web based vscode like (cider) with a custom agent
reply
Antigravity comes to mind
reply
they use claude code at deepmind
reply
Not a Googler, but I use gemini in JetBrains Junie and have no issues with it. It's cheap, very fast and most importantly actually listens to you.
reply
Codex?
reply